SSM debate and separation of church and state

Great Debates
181

Thank you for your comments Hiker

Well, actually, I was under the mistaken assumption that they were against all birth control pills. But my problem is not so much with the their reluctance to provide a morning after pill, my problem is their insistence that GOD doesn’t want their employee’s to have a morning after pill. You can’t reason with a person who says GOD says their position is right. Preach that from the pulpit if you want but don’t preach it at the workplace.

Let me take my example one step further.

Suppose, for example, their was an insurance plan that paid for abortions (I don’t know if that is available, I am making an example). I think it is a completely justified objection for an employer to say, I don’t like the idea of an abortion, I feel it is morally wrong, I do not want to fund that in any way. If you have an abortion you can still work here but do not ask me to pay for the procedure. I’m not sure if the employer is 100% morally correct, perhaps they are, but that is not the point. The point is that is a debate that can be had using reason and logic to determine an answer.

But saying I don’t like abortions and GOD doesn’t like abortions and since GOD doesn’t like abortions I’m not going to pay for yours!!! That is a debate I have no interest in being involved in. Their supposition is not falsifiable, it does no good to debate against it. This is why I say there needs to be a 100% absolute wall of separation between church and state.

The fact that religious people are deeply hurt or distressed if their beliefs or customs are not put into effect does not matter to me. We are not guaranteed a world where people are not distressed or deeply frustrated. What they are guaranteed is that in their churches and in their homes they can think and act as they wish. But here in the real world, they have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. They can not simply proclaim GOD wants ABC1234 and expect ABC1234 to automatically happen.

182

Interestingly I think you are making a good case for why you *should *be willing to enter into such a debate with religous people. If you look at your example, you will see that both groups’ religious beliefs actually have no bearing upon the topic of the discussion. Both groups are unwilling to pay for an abortion, because they feel it is morally wrong. You do not need to debate *why *they feel that way as long as you agree that it is their right to feel that way (and I understand that you agree to that). The focus of your discussion is whether their moral preference justifies a refusal to pay for the abortion. At this point the matter becomes a legal issue - and why should you not debate that with a Christian?

183

Thank you again for your comments.

That is a pleasant idea but not close to reality. You are from Europe, yes? Well as I am sure you are well aware for the past 15 years Same Sex Marriage (SSM) has been a topic of debate in the USA. For the first 10 years the christians had the political power to get what they wanted. It’s only a few years ago, lets say 5, that the tide started to turn and it’s only in the last 1 or 2 years that SSM advocates have gathered enough political capital to make SSM a legal reality.

Nothing about the position of SSM has changed, not 1%, absolutely nothing has changed, what we advocate, what we ask for, is precisely 100% the same as what we asked for 15 years ago. So, if we are right, and we are, why should we have to wait 15 years for the christians to be drug screaming and yelling into finally doing the right thing?

This is an issue that should of not even been a debate in the first place.

184

Grape juice instead of wine is a conscious decision on the part of the United Methodist Church, not something the government is mandating they do. From the United Methodist Book of Worship: “Although the historic and ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by The United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late nineteenth century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation of children and youth, and supports the church’s witness of abstinence.”

Catholics for instance still serve wine for communion.

185

Depends on what you mean by “fairly new.” The same religious arguments against homosexual marriage were used against interracial marriage. Religious arguments were also used for prohibition. Religious arguments were also used against emancipation. Etc. Etc. And when things went against the wishes of those making these religious arguments, they all proclaimed that their religious freedom was being violated and the religious foundation of the country was crumbling and all that jazz.

186

Yes, I am. Germany, to be precise. We have an SSM debate over here that is not entirely unlike yours. It is a bit less heated maybe, but overall progess is just as slow.

But doesn’t that depend on *what *you are debating? If you are looking at the question whether the same sex marriage or homosexuality in general are right or wrong, then I agree. With most fundamental Christians that debate would quickly arrive at a dead end, so I can see why you feel it is pointless. (I will add that this is not true for all Christians. There are those who will be willing to debate with you the philosophical and historical basis of Christian morale and how it relates to homosexuality. You are unlikely to reach agreement, but the debate can still be quite fruitful.)

When it comes to the question of how the religious beliefs of any one group and the law affect each other, I think that can be the topic of a debate. In fact it has to. Christians (and other religious people) have the legitimate wish to live according to their religious principles. As per the constitution the state has assumed the responsibility to generally let them. But when it comes to the point where that affects the constituational rights of other Americans, it falls upon the state to define the limits. Whether that has been done approprialtely is often difficult to decide and is a topic worthy of debate. I have no problems with Christians weighing in on that debate. Their view will be biased - why shouldn’t it be - but to say that they are incapable of rational thought just because they wish to follow the teachings of the Bible seems unfair to me.

187

The short answer is the christians who cause the most trouble, who are the most stubborn, the most fervent objections, are the same one who will debate you for 15 years and not change their position. *

I apologize for swapping examples. I am trying to use the best example to illustrate my point. Intelligent Design is my next example. After losing the fight (they tried to start it again 15 years ago) to have creationism taught (technically, mentioned) in middle school/high school. That didn’t work so now they wanted a paragraph inserted into textbooks talking about Intelligent Design.

Most christians fought against this. Most christians had enough respect for democracy that they were clearly able to see the difference between the classroom and the pulpit. It’s the ones who refuse to see the difference that are the problem. As far as I am concerned, any christian who wants to break the wall between the separation of church and state has automatically lost their “privilege” to take part in the conversation. Because, their position will be the same 15 years form now that it is today. that is just the way that personality type seems to work, for, the majority of the time.
PS- I’m going to go to sleep, I sleep odd hours, I may be delayed in my response to your reply…

  • I can’t honestly think of anything that I haven’t changed my position, at least a little, in the past 15 years. But the bible doesn’t change. A christian may change churches within 15 years, but if they are in the same church 15 years in a row, likely they are going to believe almost the same the whole time.
188

A Robert163 post: a block of text divided from coherent thought or logical exposition. See: gibberish.

Regards,
Shodan

189

I don’t follow - are you saying the free-exercise clause amounts to the same thing as the free-speech clause, merely allowing people to speak about their views on the law? It can’t be the basis of overturning a law, or an injunction on enforcing it?

There are Christians on both sides of the SSM debate, and gay rights in general. Christians aren’t a monolith.

190

Well I think posts 181,183, and 187 contain a very great amount of coherent thought and Logical Exposition.

I’m sleepy, so, my best answer is I don’t think free speech should be removed, either officially or unofficially. That’s kind of another debate, should the Duck Dynasty people be kicked off of A&E for making bigoted remarks… I’m going to say no they shouldn’t but, well, we will debate that another day, for now my answer is free speech both officially and unofficially. (I guess I would prefer Duck Dynasty to stay on air but to get such bad ratings once people knew they were bigots that they loose their advertisers).

(Shodan is probably chuckling at my garbled answers)

My answer, free speech for all subjects both officially and unofficially and as far as freedom to “exercise your religious rights”, you can kick a woman out of your church for having an abortion but you can’t fire her from her job for having one, even if you own the company and even if you really really really REALLY hate abortion. But kick her out of your church? Go ahead.

Yeah, you’re right. My problem isn’t so much with Christianity in 2015, it’s with the way I was raised, in the deep south, in the 1970’s. well, technically, it’s not much better here than it was then, I recently moved back here, so actually I’m kind of in a state of confusion. Is “christianity” just as bad in 2015 in Kansas and Texas and Indiana as it is in Southern Alabama and Southern Georgia. Some reports on the news makes it seem as if it is so, but since I don’t live there I don’t know. I lived in NYC for 15 years and I have to say the whole time there I really had noting to complain about about religion being an overbearing force. If all of the USA had the type of christianity that they have in NYC and LA and San Francisco and Seattle I probably wouldn’t have much to complain about.

191

You think wrong.

If you don’t want to be involved in the debate, you don’t have to be. But you cannot insist that people should do what you say without justifying why they should do it. And that takes debate.

“Wall of separation between church and state” also does not mean “interfering with the free exercise of religion without presenting a compelling public interest”. If you cannot present a compelling public interest, don’t expect the Supreme Court to go along with you.

Regards,
Shodan

192

I don’t think I’m getting my points across, so I’ll try again. I think you are arguing that the “wall of separation” between church and state means, and can only mean, that a person’s religious beliefs cannot be used to overturn a law, or prevent enforcement of a law against a person. Is that right?

If so, consider the consequence - legislatures would be free to pass laws that burden religious minorities, either intentionally or because they don’t have to care if there’s a burden or not. Take West Virginia’s mandatory pledge-of-allegiance law, for instance. It was passed by a mainline Protestant legislature of a mainline Protestant state. It also happened to severely burden and harm Jehovah’s Witnesses, who could either be expelled from school, or violate the precepts of their religion.

Is that the sort of country you want the United States to be? One where the majority crushes the minority because it can? Because that puts the lie to a “wall of separation”. If the legislature is free to cripple the practice of a religion, absent a compelling government interest, that’s no “wall of separation” at all.

In an ideal world, legislatures wouldn’t pass laws that burden religious practice, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Thus, protections must exist from the power of the state to destroy the powerless and the unpopular.

193

I discuss with you, do I not? Adaher, Tomndebb. But good luck having an intellectual discussion with these knuckle draggin rednecks in South Podunk Georgia, population 20,412. I’m not saying there are not people her who can’t have a decent conversation, I’m saying that most can’t. I know you think I am being biased or rude or alarmist, but I invite you to live here for 6 months and see if you do not find the climate the same as I do.

From my post above, If I am a deacon at a church I can kick a woman out of the church if she has an abortion, but If I own a company I can not fire her from her job for having an abortion. That is, is it not, the most direct, concrete example of exactly what the separation of church and state and freedom of religious expression entails, does it not?

194

The parts in bold, I don’t want, I’ll have to come back when I am not quite as tired if I am going to give a more intelligent or detailed response. For now, please answer this to see if on the most basic level we are looking at the same situation of definition or description of the situation:

If I am a deacon at a church I can kick a woman out of the church if she has an abortion, but If I own a company I can not fire her from her job for having an abortion. That is, is it not, the most direct, concrete example of exactly what the separation of church and state and freedom of religious expression entails, does it not?

195

Firing a person for having an abortion would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination in hiring, which justifies infringing on the free-exercise rights of the employer. That’s really all there is to it: free exercise of religion can’t be infringed upon, unless there’s a compelling government interest and the law in question is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest.

196

Your regional bigotries have nothing to do with the discussion.

I would prefer if you could stick to one example, and explain the principles, if any, that you are using to examine it.

In the first part of the example, you would presumably allow an employer to exclude abortion coverage from the company health plan, because the employer feels “it is morally wrong”.

In the second part, you would not allow an employer to exclude abortion coverage from the company health plan, because the employer bases his moral objection on religious belief.

What compelling public interest is served by allowing the first employer to exclude abortion, but forcing the second to include it?

You say it does no good to debate against the second employer. IOW and AFAICT, you cannot present any compelling public interest that would justify the position. You don’t even want to try. You recognize the weakness and lack of justification for your position. Yet you continue to think your position ought to be treated seriously.

It don’t work that way.

Regards,
Shodan

197

I know you were not asking me, but I will weigh in if I may:

The deacon may exclude the woman from its church for violating one of the principles of that church. The state may not interfere with that decision, because it is a strictly religious matter.

If that same deacon also owns a hardware store and the woman works there as a clerk, he cannot fire her for having an abortion, because having an abortion is not one of the legitimate grounds defined by the state that allow an employer to fire an employee. These legitimate grounds are the same for all employers and employees regardless of their religion. However, that in itself (in my view) is not an expression of the separation of church and state.

But: Congress may not pass a law that allows Christian employers to fire employees for having an abortion, because passing a law for the specific purpose of aiding a religion would indeed violate the separation of church and state.

198

1- If you don’t live here you really don’t know whether I am being bigoted or whether it is exactly as I describe it, do you? I find it amusing that you presume to know more about an area than I do when I live here and, as far as I know, you have never even set foot in this town.

2- I try to use the best example to illustrate the point I am making at the moment. I am sure you are going to same I’m stupid, or an idiot, or moving goal posts or evading things - or whatever - but that’s not actually what I am doing.

I realize, believe me I do, I realize the way I post and talk and express myself is hard to follow and frustrating to read. The best I can offer you is if you ever have a specific question to ask me, I will do my best to respond to it.

3- Could you do me a favor and try not to insult me, like calling me an idiot or a bigot or whatever. I know I have been sarcastic to you at times but I don’t think I have ever actually insulted you. Just as many people here do not like me, there are some that do not like you, but, I have disagreed with you but have I ever insulted you, Shodan?

4- To answer your question, I’ll just repeat the question:

*In the first part of the example, you would presumably allow an employer to exclude abortion coverage from the company health plan, because the employer feels “it is morally wrong”.

In the second part, you would not allow an employer to exclude abortion coverage from the company health plan, because the employer bases his moral objection on religious belief.

What compelling public interest is served by allowing the first employer to exclude abortion, but forcing the second to include it? *

As I said, I will listen to a reasoned debate because, well, what decent person wouldn’t? But when someone makes a religious proclamation, that is different. In other words They can not simply proclaim GOD wants ABC1234 and expect ABC1234 to automatically happen. You (Shodan) want to turn this into some big mystery, but it’s not, when you let your bible/preacher/church do your thinking for you, you really have no place in a a “real” discussion.

5- I am tired but I will do my best to answer the other point as well:

*You say it does no good to debate against the second employer. IOW and AFAICT, you cannot present any compelling public interest that would justify the position. You don’t even want to try. You recognize the weakness and lack of justification for your position. Yet you continue to think your position ought to be treated seriously.

It don’t work that way.*

All I am saying is that Fred Smith does not get to proclaim GOD wants ABC1234 and expect ABC1234 to automatically happen. That is not a weakness or lack of justification on my part. It is weakness and lack of justification from Fred.

199

But on this board - or at least in this thread - there is no one taking the “Fred” position, is there?

200

Well, you definitely have a better grasp of the situation than I do and I’ll have to come back later to give a better response. I think we are in agreement but it seems you think I am missing something (I am not trying to be rude) because you keep clarifying your position. It must have to do with what is and is not a “compelling reason” or what congress can or can not legitimately do. I’ll have to come back to that topic later.

I’m glad you left your comments…

However, that in itself (in my view) is not an expression of the separation of church and state.

Why not? We are in basic agreement but your analysis is obviously not as blunt as mine is…